Don’t worry, it’s fair enough.
No. They only relate to each other through the actual ontos, atoms.
They are consequences and parts, not self-valuings, except of course the notion of them.
They are values.
Yes, they signal.
electromagnetism.
Thats not something Ill win the Nobel prize for thought - someone else already discovered that. You know what - you’re on a machine made of…
anyway.
No, I clam that “intent” is a weaker version of what is called atomic strong force.
I claim that it is more sensible to reduce ourselves to the atom than the other way around.
So that the utmost we can actually know as beings, not in theory but in the singularity of experience, is the only thing that literally applies to ontology.
What I see is the experience I most singular at the moments crucial values are withdrawn.
Nietzsche worked with it, I took over.
Its the only one that works across the board.
Pathetic. If you dont understand the value philosophy for its own sake has, what, are you in it for the social networking?
Obviously I am my ideal man.
Because electrons have value (-1e) and not pleasure.
Ibid. I use value and not love or pleasure because value applies to mathematics and every other field and these two only in the animal realm.
Well, Aegean, it seems you have certain love for philosophical concepts. You can not think, which means you will never know what thinking is. I mean that. But you have a strong dislike of yourself and urge for philosophical concepts to compensate for that, so you have a certain … erm, substance.
Curious…
No, simpleton they are what?
What does valuing , needing, willing have in common?
Are ou sure…'cause you’ve stated that you are a genius.
Can you think of another way two forces can merge that does not involve a word insinuating a motive?
How does one note harmonize with another?
So, you claim intent is present in non-living unities, like an atom?
I claim that it is more sensible to reduce ourselves to the atom than the other way around.
Does that sentence make sense to you?
I know you’ve gotten away with shit like this, but does it make sense to you…honestly?
Instead of shutting the fuck up when you do not know, you must pretend that you do know with nonspecial sentences like that.
So, Nietzsche, for you, is the epitome the top, the god?
Can you tell me what was his contribution to philosophy, from where you “took over” my idiot8ic self-declared genius?
What did you take over from?
Moron, that strategy does not work on me. Nonsense is nascence…and you pretending it makes sense doews not make it so.
Why ‘value’ imbecile?
Why not ‘love’? To pretend you invented something new?
Really?
You sound like a school girl who just got fucked under the bleachers by the school jock.
I feel like I’m god…no, a butterfly…no…Schopenhauer’s cousin.
Do you have testicles?
You lick them…and suck Nietzsche’s dead cock…but do YOU have testicles?
But VO covers everything…it is so vague and nonsensical that it can encompass everything.
Why did Freud come up with the Oedipus Complex?
To a human, moron.
humans measure it.
Do they have value in and of themselves?
Tell me its energy.
Then why did you call it 'value, hypocrite…why not energy?
I ask again 160+IQ…what is common between your simplistic value, and will, and desire a nd want, and need?
Energy was a hint, you imbecile.
So value applies as a measurement, huh moron?
a measurement of what?
You stopped there, like a pathetic Jew.
Above I almost tell you.
Stick with astrology moron…you ain’t good at psychology.
Maybe Jupiter entering mars will give you a hint.
Ha!!!
When you go off the prose and poetics your true intelligence shines.
Tell me…what am I wearing…hint…nothing.
Ha!!!
You know, I’ve come across superstitious old-wives…but a theoretical male, like you?
Never.
Most astrologers I’ve met had a bit of a kink in their wrist….fags.
Someone told me you once ‘fucked a man’…or did he do you and you inverted the memory?
No shame…taking it up the arse is…in, these days,.
it is related to Freud’s Oedipus Complex theory. How he tried to convince us all that we wanted to fuck uor mothers…did you?
Shhhh… Calm down…
I’m too hyper…need something to calm myself.
meditate…hush,…focus…happy thoughts……
Shit…you are an imbecile.
WOOOOoow… Wooow…
Take it easy there…
Relax.
Calm…relax…okay…so camming your words are.
Makes me feel powerful…in control.
Sounds like the theory of natural selection of natural selection I brought up before. Experience responds to itself previous to consciousness, the unconscious experience embedded in psyche or “chaotic mental” is directly relative to that experience of which responds to itself. It is the archaic, primordial makings of all that is currently. The fabric of consciousness and reality.
The first beginning of natural selection is to do with the unconscious facets of reality, energy and matter in different forms/variables responding to each other, inevitably leading into the subconscious aspects, which is life, single cell and animalistic and other instinctual life, which then grew complex via experience and inverted, which is what consciousness is, now we have all three and the power of consciousness is to become aware of what is not directly experienced consciously but buried in psyche by the unconscious experiencing were attached to and come from, thus, there is no imagination due to this, only reality not confined to the present moment quite yet. Past or future tense.
When the subconscious aspects of reality began, so did the easily observable 2nd form of natural selection, which has to do with life, trial and error and survival of the fittest. Perhaps not always the fittest, but the more complex. Which Darwin discovered this 2nd natural selection regarding life, due to its being blatantly there.
Shhhhh…
Can I inhale?
i’m smoking a splif….
Hey Artimas,
Note that I did not so much propose a model though as Im making an observation using elementary logic to ground Silhouette’s argument in empiricism - erm, experience. Experience must relate to itself to exist.
Silhouette denies the existence of discrete causes (even using discrete causes to deny them), so it is not fertile to engage him in that direction, but I figured a thinker should at least be able to recognize that experience, when we wish to envision it as a continuum, must be responding to itself - as responsiveness is what it is.
What is experience besides responsiveness?
Natural selection is a logic only established after the fact - it simply observes that what has been selected has been selected.
No notion of life is required for this - Atoms too are product of natural selection.
Im no sure it is inevitable, other than that indeed it happened - why do you say that?
In order to make the subconscious conscious, we must “identify it as experience”.
Check this out, this is, if I say so myself, a very good text I wrote early on after having developed VO.
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t3 … experience
This text too has, I believe, been “stolen” and used by academics. Except it isn’t theft, I put it out there for free because to be stolen from as a thinker is the greatest reward.
Better than being paid to say some trivial shit with no consequences.
Listen though “survival of the fittest” is a circular term which doesn’t have is origin with Darwin, but with his readers. “Survival of the fittest to survive”.
Certainly complexity in itself is rarely an asset - look at the Neanderthal who had a much more complex cognitive process who gave way to Homo sapiens - in general, look at the basic human suff that pervades in the world - very simplistic hearts and minds, simple value structures, and it really takes formidable strength in complexity to get anywhere in this world; also, people with complex minds tend to not procreate as easily as people with very basic minds. Except where the complex mind has a particular sharpness about it, a way to use the complexity to outwit or outmatch the others.
This is the source of your self-aggrandizing psychosis.
This is why you chose to use ‘value’ when energy sufficed…to connect ti to Nietzsche. Because you covet his influence…the effect he had on you. You want to have that effect.
This is why you will fail. This level of derangement can go nowhere.
Know Thyself, inflated into a balloon, just begging to be popped.
I bet you see sings of your self-importance every day, and that you’ve had mystical experiences that prove, to you, that you are ‘gifted’, anointed by fate.
Someone who came to change the world…for the better.
A complex of Messiah.
I have already succeeded, you dimwit.
You simply declare, imbecile.
You state, and then use poetics to imply depth.
You failed…over and over. You live in your head.
Convincing, seducing, manipulating, a few morons you found on-line is no great feat.
VO is void of content. It is a word-ploy, pretending to be more than it is.
Energy sufficed, but you had to connect it to Nietzsche, and gain some of his ‘magic’.
This weakness is what makes you fail…despite what you tell yourself.
I don’t deny the existence of discrete causes - I deny their existence at a fundamental level, but not their subsequent possible existence. Discrete causes are contingent, but not necessary. Is that clearer? All meaning in everything I say is in terms of discrete experiences, because it is in terms of knowledge, words, dissected experience into concepts and reconnected via conceptual models - of course discrete causes are involved.
The point is whether I approach it from this point or from the point of direct observation, Continuous Experience is fundamental. At that level, there are no discrete causes. At the level of discrete experience there are discrete causes.
This whole “responsiveness” thing just sounds like it’s either premised on dissected experience, for some thing to be responsive to something else, or it’s tautologically meaningless to say that it’s responsive to itself.
You mean the latter, I assume, but whatever way you mean it - it’s just another example of what I’m repeatedly pointing out about Epistemology: unless you have an unavoidable axiom it’s all circular/tautological/baseless.
My point remains, as it ever was, that “Continuous Experience” is a discrete notion, as is “Experience”.
There is nothing continuous or unbroken about it.
The same goes for your argument. It is built on discrete terms.
Im a lot more skeptical than you are, less eager to arrive at a conclusion - I would never trust such roads as youve taken.
How is it tautologically meaningless?
Do you mean its obviously true?
I agree that it is true, and not that this truth is meaningless, especially since you are claiming that it is not true.
That means all you say here is circular, tautological, baseless - since you didn’t use any axiom to arrive at your belief, but merely this belief itself. It is as circular as can be.
A word does not equal what it is meant to refer to. Thus: abstraction always precedes argument.
You are making an honorable mistake similar to the presumption behind the work of the earlier Wittgenstein.
The mistake is to derive “Continuous” from your own private notion of “Experience” and then treat it as if you started out with it.